On October 21, 2017 you said you don't understand the technology behind MQA and yet you are going to write a series about it?
Your series should make interesting reading because in that same October 21, 2017 response to stehno you called him an idiot "for not at least considering that they (Peter Craven and Bob Stuart) might understand things better than you do." For you to be intellectually consistent you now have to consider others may understand things better than Peter Craven and Bob Stuart do.
In your series on MQA Technology I would like the following addressed at a minimum.
1. I want you to look at the research supporting the technology of MQA and tell me if it supports the claims MQA Ltd is making. Next I want you to tell me if the math supports the claims MQA makes. To write objectively about the research and the math you will have to analyze both sides pro MQA and anti MQA.
2. Moving on the filters MQA uses they are not new so I want to know why MQA Ltd decided to use these filters when so many others have chosen not to use these types of filters.
3. MQA uses Peter Craven's patented method for degrading files and reconstructing them. Why is this step necessary? Following this train of thought why aren't other methods of file compression equally as valid as the method MQA uses?
4. People in studios who were shown MQA found that it changed their masters in 2014. It took until last month at the AES convention in New York City for MQA Ltd to acknowledge the problem and promise a solution so engineers could hear how the final product would sound. I want to know why MQA needs to change the master when other high resolution files don't change the master.
You have made a few comments defending the industry and the press for its lack of technical rigor concerning MQA. You actually indicted the industry and the press. This is why people outside the industry realized if the technology behind MQA was going to be examined that we would have to do it ourselves. And we did on the Computer Audiophile site starting January 2, 2017.
Sincerely,
Stephen
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Dear Jim Austin, - rt66indierock 16:37:25 11/14/17 (55)
- It's a trap Jim.... - Ivan303 08:14:38 11/15/17 (0)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - 4everyoung 07:46:53 11/15/17 (39)
- It's the text, stupid - DAP 21:43:00 11/15/17 (6)
- RE: It's the text, stupid - stehno 11:51:40 11/20/17 (3)
- Hear! Hear! RE: It's the text, stupid - Archimago 13:04:17 11/20/17 (2)
- RE: Hear! Hear! RE: It's the text, stupid - stehno 18:37:10 11/20/17 (1)
- RE: Hear! Hear! RE: It's the text, stupid - Archimago 23:40:38 11/20/17 (0)
- Daniel - rt66indierock 09:52:19 11/18/17 (1)
- RE: Daniel - regmac 07:40:41 11/21/17 (0)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - rt66indierock 12:03:27 11/15/17 (9)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - 4everyoung 07:26:19 11/17/17 (8)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - rt66indierock 09:25:58 11/18/17 (7)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - 4everyoung 12:24:19 11/18/17 (6)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - rt66indierock 10:07:23 11/19/17 (3)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - Charles Hansen 02:15:51 11/20/17 (1)
- hear, hear, to CHansen - drmoran@aol.com 13:26:23 08/11/20 (0)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - 4everyoung 14:04:18 11/19/17 (0)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - regmac 08:35:24 11/19/17 (0)
- RE: "I'd love to hear the story." - Krav Maga 13:17:53 11/18/17 (0)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - John Atkinson 08:25:48 11/15/17 (20)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - rt66indierock 11:48:03 11/15/17 (14)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - John Atkinson 05:07:07 11/16/17 (13)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - John Atkinson 16:49:28 11/20/17 (12)
- Tell me about the crickets, John. I'm still awaiting your response 2 years later. - stehno 22:56:02 11/20/17 (2)
- RE: Tell me about the crickets, John. I'm still awaiting your response 2 years later. - John Atkinson 11:57:25 11/21/17 (1)
- Your endorsements seem more like those of an easily excitable kid in a candy store... - stehno 13:48:18 11/25/17 (0)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - Krav Maga 17:49:47 11/20/17 (8)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - John Atkinson 04:15:45 11/21/17 (7)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - Charles Hansen 10:47:24 11/21/17 (6)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - John Atkinson 14:08:51 11/21/17 (5)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - Krav Maga 22:49:35 11/21/17 (3)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - Charles Hansen 15:14:50 11/22/17 (2)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - stehno 00:07:23 11/26/17 (1)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - John Atkinson 08:28:18 11/26/17 (0)
- RE: MQA's claims, published in the January 2018 issue of Stereophile? - Charles Hansen 19:00:37 11/21/17 (0)
- De-legitimization efforts were well underway before this OP, helped greatly.... - Beef Guinness Cutie Pie 11:34:23 11/15/17 (2)
- RE: De-legitimization efforts were well underway before this OP, helped greatly.... - John Atkinson 12:45:17 11/15/17 (1)
- RE: De-legitimization efforts were well underway before this OP, helped greatly.... - faskenite 15:26:47 11/15/17 (0)
- Did you send MQA the 6 raw (UNmixed/UNmastered) tracks from your own recording? nt - Rick W 08:54:09 11/15/17 (0)
- So, your post might be reverse-delegitimizing? - Beetlemania 08:46:22 11/15/17 (0)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - regmac 08:10:22 11/15/17 (0)
- I think it would be highly worthwhile . . . - Beetlemania 07:28:44 11/15/17 (0)
- Any external pointer to the discussion at AES-NYC? TIA (nt) - Steve Cortez 23:13:59 11/14/17 (0)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - stehno 21:28:18 11/14/17 (1)
- RE: Dear Jim Austin, - The Bored 09:17:15 11/16/17 (0)
- Does it really matter? - mkuller 21:18:56 11/14/17 (9)
- RE: Does it really matter? - rt66indierock 12:15:14 11/15/17 (7)
- It's not that hard to test - Dave_K 09:44:52 11/16/17 (4)
- RE: It's not that hard to test - BubbaMike 12:03:58 11/16/17 (1)
- RE: It's not that hard to test - Dave_K 05:32:39 11/17/17 (0)
- RE: It's not that hard to test - rt66indierock 10:14:21 11/16/17 (1)
- RE: It's not that hard to test - Dave_K 17:16:59 11/17/17 (0)
- Do you have a dog in this fight? (nt) - mkuller 12:35:13 11/15/17 (1)
- RE: Do you have a dog in this fight? (nt) - rt66indierock 12:44:39 11/15/17 (0)
- Today ECM released their full catalog to streaming services, Tidal included. - bjh 21:36:18 11/14/17 (0)